MIT's free courses in Nooooke Science and Engineering

I change my mind.

I'm not too concerned, but does anyone know where I can get some centrifuges and some yellow cake ?
I need it for, ah, you know, a school project.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone !

First, that is a graduate level course in nuclear physics. It is available to anyone, but very few will be able to use it. And those who can use it probably have other ways of getting the information.

Second, a basic course in theoretical physics and quantum mechanics, that anyone can learn, has been available since 2003: Gerard t'Hooft's How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist.

Note that when I say "anyone", I mean anyone can learn if they are motivated enough. I looked at some of it and laughed, it's not for me. For example, choosing randomly from somewhere inside the coursework,

The matrix eigenvalue equation is equivalent to matrix diago-
nalization which is equivalent to solving the secular determinant
for each ⋋(N of them). Once we have the eigenvalues ⋋k we
can get the corresponding eigenvectors ak, giving the motion
of each atom for the given eigenvalue ⋋k:

qik = aikcos(√⋋kt+Φk).

The eigenvectors ak are the normal modes of vibration. For
each normal mode, all the atoms move with the same frequency
and phase, but with different amplitudes.


....

OK. But not really applicable for what I'm planning this week, or for the next 10 years.

Yes, Mosca- I remember learning that equation in 4th grade. Thank you for bringing back fond childhood memories.

I'm not sure how much work it took to learn about the isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium, and understand all the implications of that science. But once it was understood what weapons-grade nuclear material was to be composed of, making atomic bombs becomes less a matter of science and more of a matter of:

1] engineering
2] availability of materials and access to that engineering.

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm not sure how much work it took to learn about the isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium, and understand all the implications of that science. But once it was understood what weapons-grade nuclear material was to be composed of, making atomic bombs becomes less a matter of science and more of a matter of:

1] engineering
2] availability of materials and access to that engineering.

You still need the talent to do the first one. It's not like there are just people laying around that can do the job for you.

Even with the information available, the barrier to entry to learn something like that to the point that you could make something dangerous is pretty high, I'd imagine.

The second point might be even harder, I think.

Quote: ElectricDreams

You still need the talent to do the first one. It's not like there are just people laying around that can do the job for you.

Even with the information available, the barrier to entry to learn something like that to the point that you could make something dangerous is pretty high, I'd imagine.

The second point might be even harder, I think.

I've read this is why they are so worried about a "dirty bomb". If you don't make a very good atomic bomb out of the weapons grade plutonium you got on the Russian black market, it still makes a great dirty bomb.

Quote: ElectricDreams

You still need the talent to do the first one. It's not like there are just people laying around that can do the job for you.

Even with the information available, the barrier to entry to learn something like that to the point that you could make something dangerous is pretty high, I'd imagine.

The second point might be even harder, I think.

You need quite a few things that aren't available to the average Joe, or even the average Joe Terrorist. First of all, you need industrial-grade precision machine tools to fabricate the metal core. You also need someone who knows how to operate them. Then, you need to very precisely fabricate and install the conventional explosive that will surround the core. Then, you need a number of extremely accurate--to within one fifty-millionth of a second--piezoelectric switches to ensure that the explosive all detonates at the same precise instant (otherwise, you just get a small conventional explosion).

And if you're using plutonium, you have to be very, very careful not to die in the process of handling it. A uranium bomb just doesn't have the bang for the buck that you would want--you could level a city block or three with a crude one, but you could achieve almost the same level of destruction with conventional explosives, especially a fuel-air bomb.

The actual physics and construction processes are fairly well-known, and aren't that difficult per se. The tricky part is in getting the engineering juuuuust right.

I consider myself a pretty intelligent person, especially in math and science. Got my degree in aero/astro engineering last June. Let me just say that when it comes to these subjects it's pretty hard (if not impossible) to get an applicable knowledge without being in-person and able to ask questions about specific aspects that you do not understand. Let alone not having "book problems" to work on. I could talk to you all day about orbital periods and fanjet engines but if you don't have the opportunity to ask questions and do book problems you won't really ever have a good grasp on it. The knowledge in these courses is in a book somewhere - but it's good for people who learn verbally over literally.

Long story short, I know people that used these to supplement in-class learning but I highly doubt it could replace it. A good portion of the population will -never- be able to understand this stuff and the rest would need more resources than an MIT lecture. For the one in a million that can self-teach Calculus and Nuke-E (that's what it's called in engineering lingo) something like this won't change much.

Quote: ahiromu

I consider myself a pretty intelligent person, especially in math and science. Got my degree in aero/astro engineering last June. Let me just say that when it comes to these subjects it's pretty hard (if not impossible) to get an applicable knowledge without being in-person and able to ask questions about specific aspects that you do not understand. Let alone not having "book problems" to work on. I could talk to you all day about orbital periods and fanjet engines but if you don't have the opportunity to ask questions and do book problems you won't really ever have a good grasp on it. The knowledge in these courses is in a book somewhere - but it's good for people who learn verbally over literally.

Long story short, I know people that used these to supplement in-class learning but I highly doubt it could replace it. A good portion of the population will -never- be able to understand this stuff and the rest would need more resources than an MIT lecture. For the one in a million that can self-teach Calculus and Nuke-E (that's what it's called in engineering lingo) something like this won't change much.

And you are completely in agreement with Gerard t'Hooft. From the website linked above, "I frequently meet people who get stuck at some point. Only by intense interactions with teachers and peers one can help oneself across such barriers. I have not yet met anyone who could do the entire study all by him/herself without any guidance."

Quote: Mosca

Note that when I say "anyone", I mean anyone can learn if they are motivated enough. I looked at some of it and laughed, it's not for me. For example, choosing randomly from somewhere inside the coursework,

The matrix eigenvalue equation is equivalent to matrix diago-
nalization which is equivalent to solving the secular determinant
for each ⋋(N of them). Once we have the eigenvalues ⋋k we
can get the corresponding eigenvectors ak, giving the motion
of each atom for the given eigenvalue ⋋k:

This math would be covered in a course in linear algebra, at the masters level when I was in school many decades ago. Actually, the math is not all that difficult, it's the physics that takes a real brain.